Press Release: SRI Successfully Replicated Brillouin’s LENR Technology

@Bob

Perhaps I misspoke. Personally i find it very interesting. Just that I can put little weight on the results in their current state.

Quote

Although the total pulse power from the generator is constant the pulse power measured at the core does vary with pulse length. Still, the magnitude of the power compensation is a greater percentage of the pulse power at 100ns than at 300ns. Calculations show that at 300ns the Qreaction is quite small but is of much greater magnitude at 100ns.

It requires more time, and a more complete write-up, to analyse this fully but I find the above sentence worrying.

That is what you'd expect if the pulses generate rectification in the amplifier circuitry, since the pulse power is lower per pulse at 100ns than 300ns. So this is evidence in favour of an RFI artifact - but of course it could have other explanations.

Quote from Shane D.

Norris,

Joshua Cude always discredited McKubre by claiming he was not really with SRI either, as he was not listed on their roster, but he was an employee who just retired. Tanzella has been there many years, and I have no doubt he is employed, and probably the leader of the LENR team there. Maybe it is SRIs personal disclosure policy or something. And also, SRI is a very big institution, doing groundbreaking R/D in many disciplines, so maybe they felt endorsing a proprietary report mean't for BEs internal use, was not warranted? Who knows, and anyways a tweet is better than nothing. Heck, in LENR that may be as good as it gets.

I also don't doubt that Tanzella works at SRI and leads the LENR program. But it's just a little less impressive if SRI has a "personal disclosure policy or something" that keeps them from listing Tanzella and LENR on their web site. How would such a policy work? Topics that do not have convincing evidence of validity shall not be listed on our site??

If a "proprietary report meant for BEs internal use" does not warrant space on their web site, when BE itself publicizes it, then that exhibits less confidence than if they do give it space, is all I'm saying.

Sure, a tweet is better than nothing, but even the tweet is cautious. It doesn't say "SRI validates LENR". It says some SRI researchers report replication. There is no shame in having employees who are not infallible. And how much can you trust a guy who writes "per say" when he means "per se"?

"they could find no specific artifact during their one day visit."

So, Garwin said it could be artifact, although he couldn't think of a specific artifact.

And McKubre said is could be nuclear, although he couldn't think of a specific nuclear mechanism.

Unexpected calorimetry artifacts of that sort are far more common than unprecedented nuclear reactions in that situation.

"Oh so you found anomalous heat did you...OK, great, what is your theory...oh yeah, well that does not fit with standard physics...hahaha, gotcha...LENR cannot be real, bye, bye".

I didn't actually dismiss the idea of it being nuclear that way, but if I had, it would have been because that's how you dismissed the idea that it is an artifact. "No theory for your artifact? Then it can't be an artifact. Bye bye." There's a parallel, you see.

And it's not just that the theory doesn't fit with standard physics, but that there isn't an agreed upon theory, and the various disparate theories that have been suggested don't fit the experimental observations, and that's because the experimental observations don't fit with each other.

Of course you don't need a theory to accept an experimental observation. But to accept an interpretation, one weighs the evidence, and if the evidence is no better for an unlikely explanation than it is for a common one, well...

McKubre may have known what he was doing, but according to him, even after a quarter century of researchers knowing what they're doing, "There exists no consensus around an agreed set of facts". Artifacts, which are intrinsically erratic and unpredictable, fit that scenario better than a nuclear explanation.

Quote from Norris Roark

I didn't actually dismiss the idea of it being nuclear that way, but if I had, it would have been because that's how you dismissed the idea that it is an artifact. "No theory for your artifact? Then it can't be an artifact. Bye bye." There's a parallel, you see.

No, it is not parallel.

When you say "I think that is an artifact" you are talking about experimental instruments and procedures. You have to be specific or your assertion cannot be falsified. That which cannot be falsified is not science.

On the other hand, when you say "I have an effect that cannot be explained" that is science. It is the very essence of science, which is the effort to explain things we do not understand. Saying there is no theory to explain a result is always okay. You can never go the other way and point to theory to show that a result is wrong. When the two conflict, replicated experiments always win and theory always loses. Nothing is more fundamental to the scientific method. The experiment is the one and only standard of truth.

Furthermore, we know that cold fusion is a nuclear effect because it consumes no chemical fuel, and it produces tritium, and helium in the correct ratio for D+D fusion. Those are not theoretical claims, they are experimental observations. There is no theory to explain how nuclear fusion is occurring, but there is no doubt whatever that it is occurring. If you want to disprove that, you will have first prove that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong and then overthrow all of physics and chemistry going back to around 1820.

Quote from AlainCo

Everybody should read Beaudette...

It will be easier to read Beaudette soon, because I am preparing a Kindle edition. It should be ready in a month or so.

You can buy a paper copy now. But who reads books printed on paper nowadays? That's so 20th century!

Quote from Alain

When you say "I think that is an artifact" you are talking about experimental instruments and procedures. You have to be specific or your assertion cannot be falsified. That which cannot be falsified is not science.

There are two ways this statement is incorrect.

(1) doubting the robustness of an experiment does not require the doubter to know exactly what is the error mechanism. I agree, where things are simple enough and errors appear ruled out the experiment provides strong evidence. But, even then (as has often proved the case - e.g. the FTL neutrino result) some later analysis shows an error that could not previously be found. There is therefore no requirement for a doubter to be specific. They could for example indicate an area of complexity in which insufficient checks had been made to ensure correctness, without actually finding an error.

(2) If that which cannot be falsified is not science, you must I think agree that LENR is not science, or else indicate what experimental result would in your view falsify LENR. I have always seen one of LENR's big weaknesses the lack of falsifiable predictions which is inherent in any phenomena which can for reasons not yet understood deliver negative results in any specific experiment.

Quote from THHuxley

I have always seen one of LENR's big weaknesses the lack of falsifiable predictions which is inherent in any phenomena which can for reasons not yet understood deliver negative results in any specific experiment.

@THH: I translate this for the rest of the world: Currently there is no specific/mathematically well founded theory for most LENR effects!

Exception: R.Mills, classical muon fusion!

Quote from THHuxley

(2) If that which cannot be falsified is not science, you must I think agree that LENR is not science, or else indicate what experimental result would in your view falsify LENR.

That is dead obvious. You need to find errors in the instruments or methods in every experiment that has produced significant excess heat. You have to show that thousands of experimental runs in 200 laboratories were all wrong, for one reason or another. If even one is correct, then cold fusion is real, and it makes no difference if the others are all wrong. This is similar to saying that if the Wright brothers flew in December 1903, that proved the airplane is possible, and the fact that dozens of others failed to fly before and after that proves nothing.

There is not the slightest chance you will find mistakes in all positive experiments. Nothing like that has happened in the history of science, and it never will. If that could happen, experimental science would not work, and we would still be living in caves.

Science works. Science is based entirely on experiments. Not theory.

"Falsifiable predictions" have nothing to do with experimental science. They are made by theory, not experiments. An experiment is what it is is, and it may predict nothing. You cannot apply the standards of theory to experiment, or vice versa.

Quote from Mary Yugo

No. You are relying on the possibility that even one is correct but in fact, most of the experiments use similar methods.

No, they do not use similar methods. Every major type of calorimeter has been used including isoperibolic ones with sensors inside, others with sensors outside; flow calorimeters with water, oil and gas; Seebeck calorimeters of many different types and configuration, bomb calorimeters and ice calorimeters. Also in some cases direct tactile and visual senses have been used. That is, people have felt cells that should be stone cold with no input power but are too hot to touch, and cells that remain boiling for days or weeks when they should have cooled down. There are no systematic errors that could affect all of these systems. There is not the slightest chance every single of them is wrong for the same reason, or for different reasons. Again, if that could happen, the experimental method would not work, and science would not exist.

Quote from Mary Yugo

For example, most experiments employ isoperibolic calorimetry and most involve low absolute energy levels and/or low COP's (power out/power in) therefore they are susceptible to noise.

You just made that up. You do not know what you are talking about, because you have read nothing about calorimetry, and nothing about these experiments. I advise you not to pontificate about subjects you know nothing about.

Quote from Mary Yugo

That's why I like large results, both absolute power *and* energy *and* high COP. And of course, a very robust calorimetric method. I am pretty convinced I have not seen such a thing. Jed will say I don't look enough but in actuality I do.

Did you read that 100W+ lenr paper that JedRothwell keeps on giving you the link to? What are you opinions on that?

Rothwell:

Quote

No, it is not parallel.

Yes. There is a parallel.

Quote

When you say "I think that is an artifact" you are talking about experimental instruments and procedures.

No. It could be some kind of unexplained physical or chemical process. Like when Rossi claimed LENR in 2011, and you said he had provided the best proof ever in LENR. Alternative explanations were not immediately obvious, but over time, it became clear to most people that nuclear effects were not needed to explain the observations -- that wet steam, or stored heat, or misplaced thermocouples, among other things could explain it.

And yes, there could be instrumental or procedural misinterpretations, like the misinterpretations of emissivity in the Lugano paper. It took some time for that to be sorted out, and before it was, it was reasonable to remain skeptical. Another example is Mizuno's recent claim of LENR in an "adiabatic" system, where you argued for a long time that it had to be LENR, until finally you agreed that it was probably an artifact.

It is entirely scientific to search for such alternative explanations for experimental observations, even if they are as yet not understood or specified.

Whether it's instrumental or procedural or physical or chemical is not the point. The point is that just because you don't have a theory to explain something, doesn't mean it's not real, whether it's artifacts or all-new nuclear reactions.

Quote

You have to be specific or your assertion cannot be falsified. That which cannot be falsified is not science.

You're mangling Popper. And Nobel laureates in science who dismiss LENR probably don't care if you think they're not being scientific.

Unspecific claims of artifacts *can* be excluded (falsified), or at least made less plausible than some unspecified and unprecedented nuclear reaction, which is exactly what the skeptics are asking for. You yourself have specified the kind of demo that would convince all scientists (an isolated thing that remains indefinitely warmer than its surroundings), and therefore falsify artifacts. If LENR replaced fossil fuels, artifacts would be very clearly falsified. You only need one example to show something is falsifiable. A vague claim that something is nuclear is far less falsifiable -- objections are met with the mantra that it is unknown, and therefore possible. How does one falsify that?

It is in fact the essence of being scientific to suspect artifacts or non-nuclear processes, even when you can't put your finger on them. Otherwise, every magic trick you can't *specifically* explain must actually be magic.

You yourself wrote that "calorimetric errors are more common than researchers realize". And Feynman wrote "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool." I take that to mean you should be suspicious of artifacts that might deceive your thinking, and do your best to exclude them.

And Garwin suggested a number of possible artifacts, and how they could be checked, but it didn't happen. Instead. 5 years later, McKubre backtracked, writing in his EPRI report that "with hindsight, we may now conclude that the presumption of repeatable excess heat production was premature". He seems to have abandoned that particular experiment after that.

Quote

On the other hand, when you say "I have an effect that cannot be explained" that is science. It is the very essence of science, which is the effort to explain things we do not understand. Saying there is no theory to explain a result is always okay. You can never go the other way and point to theory to show that a result is wrong. When the two conflict, replicated experiments always win and theory always loses. Nothing is more fundamental to the scientific method. The experiment is the one and only standard of truth.

Yes, and bears shit in the woods, and the pope is catholic.

Exactly who are you preaching to? Everyone agrees with this. It's motherhood. And it is entirely consistent with what I said. I just argued that you can't rule out artifacts just because there's no artifact theory either.

The effort to explain things should include an effort to find mundane explanations as well as exotic explanations. *That* is how science is done. And in Rossi's case, in every demonstration or "validation" so far, it has been found that exotic explanations are not needed, even though you were absolutely convinced that experiment demanded exotic explanations. You have to learn to keep an open mind.

Again, I'm not saying you have to exclude nuclear explanations because there is no specific theory for them; I'm saying you shouldn't exclude artifacts because there is no specific theory for *them*. That's the parallel.

When neither mundane nor exotic explanations are well defined, then scientists make judgments based on likelihood, the evidence, and their experience. And in the matter of LENR, the weak and erratic and inconsistent nature of the results ("There exists no consensus around an agreed set of facts" -- McKubre), has led to an overwhelming consensus that the observations are more plausibly attributable to artifacts, errors, and confirmation bias, than to unprecedented, unidentifiable, largely radiation-free, nuclear reactions that are inconsistent with generalizations of a century of *experimental* results.

Quote from LENR Calender

I am not sure what level of error discussion you expect, but they do mention:

By this compensation calorimetry method, the measurements of net input and output power are carefully measured to within 5% accuracy to assure an exact calculation of the LENR coefficient.

There's always two parts to a complete error analysis, definition of precision and accuracy. They are apparently claiming 5% accuracy. The sig figs discussion focuses on precision. Use of 1 sig fig usually translates to +/- 100% as a precision. That breaks down to ~33% RSD (relative standard deviation). When one does a linear regression analysis the error stats are available in every software package I'm aware of, yet the SRI report says nothing on this. A typical problem with people who don't fully understand the use of stats is that they confuse accuracy and precision. When the SRI folks claim 5% _accuracy_, do they literally mean their calibration is always off by 5%, or do they really mean that they think they have a 5% precision on a '100%' accurate number (which theoretically is what a calibration curve is supposed to do, one doesn't build a calibration curve to produce a "95% of the correct number" value)? One could assume the latter, since that grants them the benefit of the doubt, but we are dealing with anomalous results being explained by astounding new physics. Trust and 'benefit of the doubt' shouldn't come into play, the necessary information should be specified.

Quote from LENR Calender

Also results such as 1.01, 1.03 are deemed to be "within experimental error"

Given the lack of precision specification and the use of only 1 sig fig in the calibration coefficients, 0 and 2 are also "within experimental error", based on what we can see.

Quote from LENR Calender

So not really much difference in COP between the 3 pulse lengths. Would have been more reassuring to see a varying COP peak within the same run dependent on the pulse length.

Which is why I asked about the QpulseLen plots (point 4 in my original post). It looks suspiciously like a step function baseline change when the Q pulse is turned on. Baseline shifts are noted many times in CF data. But again, insufficient info to decide.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, they also brought a gadget from Bruillouin to SRI, and the SRI people ran it themselves with no one from Brillouin around. They got the same results as Brillouin did.

Which is exactly how systematic errors are promulgated. It would have been much better if they had added sensors to the system, some redundant and some not, to confirm the underlying assumptions Brillouin built into their apparatus.